Mark Doland (R-Toledo).

As Tama County voters consider whether to reduce the Board of Supervisors from five members back to three, I believe we need to separate personalities and political disagreements from the fundamental question before us:

Is Tama County better represented and better governed by three supervisors or five?

That is the question on the ballot. It is not a referendum on whether we agree with every decision made by every current supervisor. Individual supervisors are accountable through elections. The question before voters is what structure of government best serves Tama County for decades to come.

I believe the answer is five.

First, five districts mean more local representation. Tama County consists of many distinct communities spread across a large rural area. With five supervisors, each elected official represents a smaller portion of the county and fewer constituents. That gives taxpayers greater access to the person elected to represent them and allows supervisors to develop a better understanding of the roads, communities, businesses, farms and concerns within their districts.

The argument that larger counties operate with three supervisors therefore misses the point. Population alone does not determine whether local representation is valuable. Current population estimates place Tama County 43rd among Iowa’s 99 counties. Tama County’s needs also extend far beyond any single city. County government oversees roads, public safety, public health, veterans services, zoning, elections, conservation, budgeting and numerous other responsibilities.

Compare county government with our city governments. We do not normally argue that fewer elected representatives automatically means better government. Representative government works because citizens have multiple elected voices, viewpoints and checks on power.

Second, five supervisors provide greater oversight.

On a three-member board, two people constitute a governing majority. Two people can therefore determine virtually every ordinary policy direction of county government. On a five-member board, it ordinarily takes three.

That difference matters.

Broader oversight is especially important when supervisors oversee county budgets, department appropriations and taxpayer dollars. Tama County has learned the hard way that financial oversight cannot be treated casually. Rather than concentrating responsibility among fewer elected officials, we should welcome more independent eyes reviewing the county’s finances, policies and operations.

Third, five supervisors make it more difficult for county government to become concentrated in the hands of a few people.

We should remember what government looked like before this change. Under the old meeting rules, public comment was limited to agenda items and totaled only 15 minutes, with three minutes per speaker. Residents also publicly complained that meetings were not livestreamed and that their requests for greater access went unanswered.

Compare that with today. Current county meeting notices expressly provide public-comment opportunities on county business, and recent official minutes show citizens actually speaking during public comment periods.

That is progress.

Government should not fear taxpayers watching their meetings or asking questions. Government belongs to the people who pay for it.

Most importantly, voters have already spoken clearly about this issue.

In November 2022, Tama County voters were asked directly whether the number of supervisors should increase from three to five. 3,868 voted yes and 2,285 voted no. The five-supervisor proposal prevailed by 1,583 votes.

That was not a close election.

Now, only a few years later, voters are being asked to reverse that structural decision before Tama County has even had much time to operate under the five-member system.

There are certainly people who disagree with individual decisions made by the current board. That is their right. But dissatisfaction with an individual officeholder is not a sound reason to restructure county government.

Elections are where we hold individual supervisors accountable.

If voters believe a supervisor has made poor decisions, they can support an opponent. If they believe a supervisor has done a good job, they can reelect that person. That is representative government.

But changing the number of supervisors should require a different analysis: Which structure provides the best representation, accessibility, oversight and accountability for Tama County?

We should also be careful about allowing today’s political disagreements to determine a governmental structure that will remain long after every current supervisor is gone.

The five-member board is not about Mark Doland, Heather Knebel, Curt Hilmer, David Turner or Curt Kupka. The five-member system is about the next generation of Tama County residents.

I do not want our county to go backward.

I remember an era when citizens repeatedly complained that they felt shut out of their county government, when meetings were not livestreamed, when public participation was restricted and when too many legitimate questions seemed to end without meaningful public discussion.

Today taxpayers can watch their government, come to meetings and speak about county business. That is the direction we should continue.

This vote should not be about personalities, old political battles or grievances against particular supervisors.

Strip all of that away and ask yourself one question:

For a diverse rural county like Tama County, do we want three elected voices or five?

I choose five.

Five districts. Five voices. More local representation. More eyes on taxpayer money. More checks and balances. More accessibility to the people we serve.

We fought too hard for greater openness and representation to voluntarily give it away.

Let’s keep moving Tama County forward. Vote NO on reducing the Board of Supervisors from five to three.

Mark Doland (R-Toledo) is Vice Chairman of the Tama County Board of Supervisors.